Carlos Rene Monteagudo- Villegas v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CARLOS RENE MONTEAGUDO-
VILLEGAS,
Petitioner,
v.
MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney
General,
Respondent.
No. 20-73516
Agency No. A202-184-573
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Carlos Rene Monteagudo-Villegas, a native and citizen of El Salvador,
petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order
dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his
application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-73516
Against Torture (“CAT”). Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We
review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales,
453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2006). We dismiss in part and deny in part the
petition for review.
As to the particular social groups raised to the agency, Monteagudo-Villegas
does not challenge the agency’s determination that they are not cognizable. See
Martinez-Serrano v. INS, 94 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues not
specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). As to the
particular social groups that Monteagudo-Villegas raises for the first time in his
opening brief, we lack jurisdiction to consider them. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358
F.3d 674, 677-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not
presented to the agency). Thus, Monteagudo-Villegas’s asylum claim fails.
In his opening brief, Monteagudo-Villegas does not raise any argument
challenging, and therefore waives, the BIA’s determination that he waived his
withholding of removal claim. See Martinez-Serrano, 94 F.3d at 1259-60.
Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Monteagudo-Villegas failed to show it is more likely than not he would be tortured
by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El
Salvador. See Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-73516
The temporary stay of removal remains in place until issuance of the
mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED in part; DENIED in part.

-- 3 of 3 --